The Enterprise E would win. It would beat the Narada as easily as the Narada beat everything in the reboot. Even if the Vengeance somehow managed to surpass the Narada's weapons and armor, the E's tech could scan and defeat the Vengeance without firing a shot, exploiting some flaw, not to mention regenerative shielding, quantum torpedoes, or the ability to travel faster. If all else fails, the E would warp away, find a weakness within their scans (and find an ailment for the crewman on deck twos stomach ache), and tear the Vengeance apart with a modified system. Technology wins in this fight.

I guess I need to buy an oil tanker, put a few rockets, torpedoes and sonars on it, and travel back a 100 years in time. Boy that'll revolutionize the navy.

Click to expand...

100 years takes you to 1913, where torpedoes and long-range gunnery were fairly common. Assuming the ship can maintain range (i.e. has manoeverability and can manage about 20-25 knots) and was armed with Harpoons, then you could easily take out the whole US Navy of the time.

Take a motor boat with a 20mm cannon back to 1805 and you could sink Nelson's entire fleet single-handed!

The Enterprise E would win. It would beat the Narada as easily as the Narada beat everything in the reboot. Even if the Vengeance somehow managed to surpass the Narada's weapons and armor, the E's tech could scan and defeat the Vengeance without firing a shot, exploiting some flaw, not to mention regenerative shielding, quantum torpedoes, or the ability to travel faster. If all else fails, the E would warp away, find a weakness within their scans (and find an ailment for the crewman on deck twos stomach ache), and tear the Vengeance apart with a modified system. Technology wins in this fight.

Click to expand...

With all the so-called advancements fans claim in the late 24th century, the Enterprise E is a huge disapointment IMO.

It doesn't do anything that the TOS Enterprise cannot do, other than fire quantum torpedoes which are hardly an improvement over photon torpedoes (they both can be easily evaded or shot!)

I don't recall the Enterprise E being able to defeat anything without help or sacrificing a warp core or a crew member.

Not completely a fair assessment. TOS Enterprise (and the A) had 79 episodes and 6 movies for us to learn what she and her sister types cold do. The Galaxy Class had 7 seasons and 1 movie, plus guest appearances on DS-9. In contrast, the Sovereign Class only had 3 movies. In one movie, all the action takes place ON the Enterprise and, in Insurrection we really don't see much ship-to-ship combat.

Err, and we got all that just from watching a couple scenes for each of the E-E's movies? How does one judge scale? To make those determinations, you have to go to secondary material. Nobody watches First Contact and says, "At first glance, it's immediately apparent that the forward phaser array is firing 7.2 MW of phaser fire from each emitter." What you just posted up only emphasizes that the E-E does the same thing as the original, merely with different numbers. Oddly enough, if you take comparable scenes from Enterprise, TOS, and the movies, the weapons do the same thing and blow the same things up -- replace the NX-01 with the E-E in the shots and it's the exact same feats -- even the phasers look the same! Why? Because the weapons and the ships and the attackers and defenders all play the exact same role.

When you get down to the bare bones of it, the E-E fighting style was still essentially shoot phasers, launch torpedoes, let shields get hit. It's the same combat style from TOS, and hardly the kind of battlefield variety you have in even today's military (for today's battleships, firing cannons and missiles at the enemy are only a fraction of its battle capabilities). If anything, we barely saw the E-E as a 700 meter swiss-army knife. She was merely just a mobile turret and nothing more, with nothing onscreen to show that she was otherwise. The Enterprise-D and Voyager, on the other hand, were depicted doing many other things than simply shooting stuff.

My friend, writer Kay Reindl, wrote a blog piece about Into Darkness, titled The Ego of Entitlement, and hate that the film has been getting and in it, she linked back to someone else's blog wherein that writer ("Dan") tried to offer explanations for some of the things the more vocal (minority of) fans have been kvetching about since the film was released, including the explanations about the Vengeance.

You can read that particular blog entry here. I'd offer to paste the relevant bits here but it really makes much more sense as a theory on the whole if you read the entire thing (don't worry, it's only a few paragraphs.)

Also recommended: Kay's original blog entry, detailing why the majority of the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots decrying how terrible Into Darkness was are in fact just foaming-at-the-mouth idiots: Conflict and Drama for Dummies

...replace the NX-01 with the E-E in the shots and it's the exact same feats -- even the phasers look the same! ...

Click to expand...

Well, it's easy for me to imagine the Enterprise E in Archer's time would one-shot everything.

...If anything, we barely saw the E-E as a 700 meter swiss-army knife. She was merely just a mobile turret and nothing more, with nothing onscreen to show that she was otherwise. The Enterprise-D and Voyager, on the other hand, were depicted doing many other things than simply shooting stuff.

Click to expand...

Your comparing a ship that only had a several hours to show what it can do vs ships that had several seasons to explain. You could assume they didn't downgrade Picard at least.

detailing why the majority of the foaming-at-the-mouth idiots decrying how terrible Into Darkness was are in fact just foaming-at-the-mouth idiots

Click to expand...

I alway find it amusing how all the Star Trek series and the first ten movies can be examined in detail and analyzed by their consumers ("the fans"), but for some unknown reason the eleventh and twelfth movies are to be only observed and adored, never commented upon.

I don't know. Have you read any of the articles Kay has written on the subject? She goes in to extraordinary detail examining why it's not just "observe and adore" with the JJ Abrams films, as well as why fandom (at least the vocal minority of fandom) has gone so absolutely batshit about those two films.